Industry applicability — methodology

This page explains why industry context matters for NEI, how the initial mappings were developed, and how this layer may evolve.

Why industry context matters

NEI indicators describe organizational practices that are observable across all industries. A practice such as simplifying administrative processes, or basing performance evaluation on output rather than style, is relevant in any organization.

But relevance is not uniform. The structural conditions, dominant culture, regulatory environment, and operational design of different industries create different risk profiles for neurodivergent employees. Some indicators are a primary concern in nearly every technology company. The same indicator may be less urgently relevant in a small manufacturing business, where different indicators take precedence.

An enablement framework that treats all indicators as equally urgent in all contexts produces noise. Industry applicability mappings make these differences explicit without changing indicator definitions or creating industry-specific criteria.

How different industries create different priorities

The same indicator can have different urgency depending on industry context:

A hospital has patient-safety-critical role clarity requirements that make explicit role definition a primary concern
A software company may have more pressing concerns around open-office sensory environments and evaluation style-bias in code review
A financial services firm faces elevated disclosure risk that makes coaching-without-disclosure particularly material

Recognizing these differences allows practitioners — and AI systems building on NEI — to prioritize their attention more effectively, without abandoning indicators that remain applicable everywhere.

How initial mappings were developed

The initial draft mappings were developed using practitioner judgment. The process for each industry:

Identify the structural characteristics of the industry — regulatory environment, dominant org design, common workplace configurations, culture patterns
For each indicator, assess whether those structural characteristics create elevated concern compared to the cross-industry baseline
Assign a relevance level (Core, High, Moderate, Context-specific, or Low) and write a rationale

This process is explicitly not based on empirical data collection. It is a structured judgment exercise drawing on knowledge of organizational psychology, HR practice, disability research, and neurodivergent workplace experience.

Initial mappings are marked:

status: draft
review_status: unreviewed
source_type: practitioner-judgment

How to interpret relevance levels

Level	Interpretation
Core	In most organisations in this industry, this indicator is likely to be a primary concern. Prioritize assessment here.
High	Relevant to most organisations. Worth including in any industry-informed assessment.
Moderate	Applicable in many contexts; importance depends on organisation type, size, and structure.
Context-specific	Relevant in some sub-industry contexts. Requires judgment about whether it applies to the specific organisation.
Low	Less commonly a primary concern. May still be applicable; not typically the first area to examine.

Relevance levels are advisory, not prescriptive. An indicator mapped as “Moderate” in an industry may be “Core” in a specific organization within that industry, depending on its particular design choices. These levels describe industry-level tendencies, not organization-specific determinations.

Relevance is about likely applicability, not importance. A “Core” mapping does not imply the indicator is more important than a “High” indicator in a different industry. It describes applicability within the industry context.

Classification reference system

Industry applicability mappings use NACE Rev.2 (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Revision 2) as the underlying classification system, at Division level (2-digit codes).

NACE Rev.2 was chosen for several reasons:

Wide adoption. NACE Rev.2 is the standard across EU member states and is maintained by Eurostat with stable governance.

International compatibility. NACE Rev.2 aligns with ISIC Rev.4 (the UN international standard), and cross-walks exist to NAICS (North America), the UK SIC, and other national classifications. This makes NACE mappings a useful starting point for expanding to other systems.

Stability. NACE Rev.2 has been in force since 2008. Division codes are stable and unlikely to change in ways that invalidate mappings.

Division level (2-digit) provides sufficient industry differentiation for an advisory applicability mapping without requiring indicator-level analysis for hundreds of sub-groups.

The data model is designed to support additional classification systems in future without restructuring existing NACE mappings.

Mapping target: indicator concepts

Industry applicability maps to indicator concepts (e.g. NDI-2cdbgj), not to specific indicator versions.

This means:

Mappings remain valid across routine indicator version updates (criteria refinements, additional citations)
Users can apply current mappings to whichever release they are working with
If an indicator concept is substantially revised, sector mappings will be reviewed at that point

Future directions

Expanded industry coverage

Mappings for additional industries are in development. The current five industries (technology, financial services, manufacturing, education, healthcare) represent the highest-priority initial set.

Expanded classification coverage

Mappings for NAICS (North America), the UK SIC, and other national or regional classification systems could be added using the same data model. Cross-walk tables exist for NACE ↔ ISIC ↔ NAICS, making expansion tractable.

Empirical validation

Initial practitioner-judgment mappings could be refined by:

Analysis of industry-specific literature on neurodivergent workplace challenges
Practitioner review from industry specialists
Evidence from organizations that have applied the framework in specific industries

Sub-industry differentiation

Where evidence supports it, more granular mappings could be added alongside industry-level entries. For example, distinguishing investment banking (high manager churn, high-pressure culture) from retail banking (more stable, process-driven) within the financial services category.

Industry guidance documents

Narrative guidance for specific industries — summarizing the typical risk profile and recommended starting indicators — could be developed as a separate resource drawing on applicability mappings.

Contributing to industry mappings

Industry applicability mappings are open to contributor input. The contribution process and template are described on the Contribute page.

Contributions are particularly valuable where:

You have industry-specific expertise that complicates or confirms a current mapping
You can point to research evidence that supports or challenges an applicability assessment
You believe an indicator is missing from an industry mapping or has been assigned the wrong relevance level